Why do cons need OTHERS to define for them what "losing in Iraq" means?

Question

is it really that complicated?

or have the cons just become "pathological" in their need to win the un-winnable?

i will spell it out for you, losing means:
-policing a civil war
-getting trapped between tribal/religious factions that are fighting one another, have been for centuries, and will continue to do so for hundreds of years.
-war of attrition: weapons that cost pennies (roadside bombs, IED's) with BILLIONS of dollars
-fighting a protracted guerilla war

deek, only the cons think in terms of correctness as changing from administration to administration. if a democrat continues this failed war, liberals will speak out against them as well. unlike you, i do not think "winning" a war has anything to do with the ruling party in America.

Answer 1

The cons said we want America to lose when we said there were no WMD's.

The cons said we want America to lose when we said the elections wouldn't change anything.

The cons said we want America to lose when we said we didn't believe Bush when he said we were "making progress" in Iraq... in 2003... in 2004... in 2005... in 2006... and this year too.

The cons said we want America to lose when we ridiculed Cheney when he said the insurgency was in it's last throes... two years ago.

The cons said we want America to lose we called Rumsfeld a failure.

The cons said we want America to lose when we pointed out that the surge wasn't working.

Maybe it's time to stop listening to Bush and all the other backers of this war who have been wrong about it 100% of the time, and listen to the people who have been consistently right about Iraq from the beginning, the 'libs' you hate so very much.

Answer 2

I don't insist on redefining anything. Perhaps you're generalizing a bit there? Sorry, but just because some people define atheism differently than you do doesn't mean they're necessarily trying to insult you. Maybe they just don't get it and would benefit from an explanation of your own definition rather than a second wrong that won't make a right.

Answer 3

Allow me to spell it out for you:

Losing in Iraq means losing. It means running away and not finishing the job. It means nullifying the sacrifices of our soldiers to play a political game. It means allowing Iraq to fall back into a dictatorship that will most assuredly use their newfound oil wealth to rebuild and probably eventually attack the US, or assist in doing so.

Any other definition of 'loss' is liberal spin flung by Harry Reid and propagated across his lemmings, such as yourself.

Answer 4

Now, now, cons don't like it when you get all specific on them. They can't be "playing the blame game" or acting like "the party of personal responsibility." You know how they hate that and besides soon everyone in Iraq will convert to Christianity and George Bush will be the Saint of Iraq. Just you wait and wait and wait and wait....oh here's the bill.

Answer 5

Derivative.


We are just about wrapping it up over there. When are you guys gonna admit that things are looking up. Oh I see, probably the EXACT day that a democrat President is innaugurated. LOL.

Answer 6

The moon must be coming into phase again. lol

Answer 7

Oh it must be because of that 'moral confusion' I heard about somewhere recently.

Answer 8

The war is ALREADY LOST... but the born agains are living in fantasy land along with the that moron Bush... better known as the ANTI-CHRIST because he is going to destroy the world with his idiotic policies.

Answer 9

FAILED to find the weapons of mass destruction
FAILED to stop Al Qaeda from attacking targets
FAILED to stop terrorism from spreading
FAILED to stabilize Iraq

If this is not the definition of losing, then what is?

Answer 10

We won't lose in Iraq, the losers are all here, rooting for a loss in Iraq.